State of New York tardy County of Broome Government Of?ces Department of Planning and Economic Development Jason T. Garnar, County Executive - Frank Evangelisti, Director COVE RSHEET T0: Mr. Tito Martinez Assistant Director Planning Housing and Community Development City of Binghamton Mr. Nicholas Corcoran, Chair Planning Commission City of Binghamton 38 Hawley Street Binghamton, New York 13901 Corcoran@binghamton.edu FROM: Lora Zier, Senior Planner DATE: February 10, 2020 NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 16 COMMENTS: Broome County Office Building - 60 Hawley Street - P.O. Box 1766 - Binghamton, New York 13902 Phone: (607) 778-2114 - Fax (607) 778 -2175 - State of New York County of Broome Government Of?ces Department of Planning and Economic Development Iason T. Garnar, County Executive - Frank Evangelisti, Director February 10, 2020 Mr. Nicholas Corcoran, Chair Planning Commission City of Binghamton 38 Hawley Street Binghamton, New York 13901 RE: Review Pursuant to Section 239-I and -m of the General Municipal Law (GMU) Dear Mr. Corcoran: The Broome County Department of Planning and Economic Development has received your request for review of the below captioned matter: Applicant: Brett Pritchard Project: Site Plan Review: Construction of new vehicle fueling station with drive thru, and establishment of a bank and retail in two existing buildings at 33 S. Washington Street and 28 Mary Street Municipality: City of Binghamton Tax Map No: and 160.65-3-6 BC Case: 239-2019-141 The Planning Department has reviewed the above-cited case and has determined that the project as submitted would have significant negative county?wide and inter-community impacts within the intent of General Municipal Law Section 239-l as described below and for these reasons recommends denial of the project as submitted. GML 239-l. 2. compatibility of various land uses with one another; 0 This Department has concerns that the proposed gas station/convenience store would be incompatible with the existing adjoining development and would adversely change the appearance of the neighborhood. The project site is located at a prominent gateway to downtown City of Binghamton as well as along the pedestrian?oriented gateway linking downtown to the South Washington Street Bridge neighborhood. The proposed gas station/convenience store does not conform to the pedestrian-oriented streetscape of this block of South Washington Street created 'by zero-foot front setbacks and pedestrian-friendly street amenities. 0 The proposed project would add truck traffic and other vehicle traffic to Mary Street, a narrow residential neighborhood street. 0 The site plan does not address the?widening of Mary Street and potential property takings. - The project does not address the parking impaCts on_ the Southside neighborhood from the loss of parking in the Southside Commons public parking lot due to trucks using this parking lot to access the project site. The Preliminary Site Plan does not show the required and proposed setbacks, lot dimensions, parking and loading spaces, maneuvering aisle widths, drive-thru lane dimensions, and required and proposed landscaping to demonstrate that the project site can adequately accommodate the proposed uses and traffic. Broome County Office Building - 60 Hawley Street - P.0. Box 1766 - Binghamton, New York 13902 Phone: (607) 778-2114 - Fax (607) 778 -2175 - State of New York County of Broome Government Of?ces Department of Planning and Economic Development jason T. Garnar, County Executive - Frank Evangelisti, Director GML 239- I. 2. traffic generating characteristics of various land uses in relation to the effect of such traffic on other land uses and to the adequacy of existing and proposed thoroughfare facilities; The proposed project raises traffic safety conflicts and concerns including the following: 0 Traffic impacts at NYS Route 434 and South Washington Street: BMTS January 24 2020: The applicant?s Traffic Impact Assessment states that. ?The existing longer delays at the Vestal Parkway (Route 434) South Washington Street intersection will continue to degrade with the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. .the analysis indicates that the northbound left/through movement will drop to LOS and the westbound left movement will drop to LOS during the morning peak hour." (page 8) NYSDOT January 23, 2020: The TIS recommends signal timing changes at the NYS Route 434/South Washington Street intersection. However, the Department (NYSDOT) will likely not be able to implement these changes, as the proposed alterations will result .in significant increases in delay on NYS Route 434. BMTS January 24, 2020: Since the applicant?s proposed mitigation measure will likely not be implemented, the project would result in significant traffic impacts at NYS Route 434 and South Washington Street. Even implementing the recommended changes to the signal timings would result in negative traffic impacts along Rt 434. Therefore, the project would result in traffic impacts that have not been addressed by the applicant. . Mary Street Widening NYSDOT January 7, 2020: As Mary Street will be a primary access roadway to and from this site, the project may require mitigation, such as widening of the street between the site entrance and NYS Route 434, to account for the use of this street by heavy vehicles and to ensure pedestrian safety; 0 NYSDOT November 23, 2020: NYSDOT requests the applicant to display on the site plan the proposed widening or other changes to Mary Street to account for heavy vehicles, if necessary; 0 BMTS November 24, 2020: The applicant has not addressed the potential need to mitigate impacts to Mary Street. Therefore, this project may result in traffic impacts to Mary Street that have not been addressed by the applicant. . Mary Street Accidents 0 BMTS January 24, 2020: The applicant?s updated crash analysis states that "backing accidents are associated traffic backing out of the post office parking onto Mary Street?. This is substantiated by a Road Safety Assessment completed by BMTS which states that ?vehicles backing out of the (post office) parking lot into Mary Street are causing accidents". As discussed in the TIS the proposed development would increase traffic on Mary Street. The increase in traffic would potentially result in more traffic conflicts and safety impacts with the post office traffic. Broome County Office Building - 60 Hawley Street - P.0. Box 1766 - Binghamton, New York 13902 Phone: (607) 778-2114 - Fax (607) 778 -2175 . . I . State of New York County of Broome Government Of?ces Department of Planning and Economic Development jason T. Garnar, County Executive - Frank Evangelisti, Director - On-site Circulation and site access impacts 0 BMTS January 10, 2020: The TIS does not discuss in much detail the potential onsite traffic conflicts. Specifically, the drive-through lane for the coffee shop would generate conflict with the entire circulation for all the uses, notjust the bank drive-through, and fuel deliveries would conflict with the exit lane onto Mary Street. The site plan does not include the location of a dumpster enclosure so it is difficult to determine if there would be conflicts due to trash collection. The site plan also doesn?t include a loading space for deliveries. BMTS January 10, 2020: The TIS does not mention that the only way for delivery trucks to access to the site is from Vestal Avenue through the City-owned and maintained parking lot for Southside Commons. in addition, 0 The project does not address the need for a variance for the Mary Street driveway 50-foot wide curb cut. 0 Other potential pedestrian, truck, and vehicle traffic safety conflicts include the following: 0 Trucks maneuvering through the Southside Commons public parking lot to access the project site resulting in the removal of parking spaces 0 Vehicles entering, exiting, and circulating through the bank ATM and restaurant drive-thru lanes resulting in traffic safety conflicts with pedestrians and other vehicles in the parking lot, 0 Fuel trucks parking and dispensing fuel 0 Garbage truck entering and exiting the site and accessing the dumpster GML 239-l. 2. drainage; 0 The proposed project site is located almost entirely within the Preliminary FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. The City should exercise caution in approving a project located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. The applicant should be informed of the risks of placing the project within the Special Flood Hazard Area. GML -239-l. 2. (9) official municipal ?and county development policies, as may be expressed through comprehensive plans, capital programs or regulatory measures; . The SEQR Full EAF should include that project site is located within the Susquehanna (New York State) Heritage Area and within 1,500 feet of medical and hospital facilities. 0 The SEQR Full EAF project description should include the gas pumps, 25 Mary Street residential property demolition, and loss of parking in the Southside Commons public parking lot. 0 The SEQR Full EAF should document that the Independent Hose Company Building 33 South Washington Street was designated eligible for listing on the State Register/National Register of Historic Places on December 31, 2018. Broome County Office Building - 60 Hawley Street - P.O. Box 1766 - Binghamton, New York 13902 Phone: (607) 778-2114 - Fax [607) 778 -2175 - State of New York - County of Broome Government Of?ces Department of Planning and Economic Development Iason T. Garnar, County Executive - Frank Evangelisti, Director 0 The site plan should show the following at a minimum: 0 Pedestrian connection from the site to the sidewalk at NYS Route 434 at Mary Street (see NYSDOT comments) 0 Internal pedestrian network (see NYSDOT and BMTS comments) 0 Existing ROW fence orthe trees along NYS Route 434 Widening or other changes to Mary Street to account for heavy vehicles, if necessary (see NYSDOT comments) 0 Channelized exit at South Washington Street or signage to prevent vehicles from entering the site from South Washington Street 0 Bicycle facilities 0 Delivery truck types, dimensions, turning radius, and maneuvers into, out of, and through the project site to show that the trucks could safely maneuver Pedestrians, bicyclists, trucks, and automobiles entering and exiting the project site and maneuvering and circulating about the project site, including the drive?through lanes to demonstrate that the project would not result in traffic safety conflicts Dumpster enclosure location and design (see BMTS comments of January 10, 2020) 0 Fuel truck parking and dispensing area Drive-thru lanes 0 Required and proposed parking spaces for customers, employees, and delivery trucks 0 Existing adjacent land uses on Washington Street, Vestal Avenue, and Mary Street 0 Landscaping plan and schedule 0 Southside Commons public parking lot parking spaces before and after the project . 0 Required and proposed setbacks, lot dimensions, parking and loading spaces, maneuvering aisle widths, drive-thru lane dimensions and required and proposed landscaping 0 Existing and proposed contours Signage 0 Existing and proposed project tax map boundaries shown clearly in their entirety Broome County Office Building - 60 Hawley Street - P.O. Box 1766 - Binghamton, New York 13902 Phone: (607) 778?2114 - Fax (607) 778 -2175 - State of New York 4; County of Broome Government Of?ces Department of Planning and Economic Development Jason T. Garnar, County Executive - Frank Evangelisti, Director The case file was routed to the following agencies for review: Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study (BMTS) New_York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Broome County Department of Public Works (DPW) Broome County Health Department (BCHD) Enclosed are comments from the BMTS, NYSDOT, and BCHD that need to be addressed. DPW had no comments. Please submit a copy of your decision in this case within seven (7) days of taking action so it can be included in the case record. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Frank Evangelisti Director FE/lmz cc: Mr. Tito Martinez, Assistant Director Planning Housing and Community Development, City of Binghamton - BC file copy Broome County Office Building - 60 Hawley Street - PO. Box 1766 - Binghamton, New York 13902 Phone: [607) 778-2114 - Fax (607) 778 -2175 - Zier, Lora M. From: Zier, Lora M. Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 1:07 PM To: Martinez, Tito Cc: McCullen, Leigh Yonkoski, Jennifer Gowe, Brenda Giordano, Emily Boulton, Leslie G. Subject: BMTS Comments FW: 236?2019?141 RE: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street Tito: Please see the BMTS comments below from Leigh McCullen for 33 South Washington Street. Comments from Broome County Planning are forthcoming. Sincerely, Lora Zier From: McCullen, Leigh A. Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:51 PM To: Zier, Lora M. Subject: 236-2019?141 RE: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street Hi Lora, BMTS has the-following additional comments on this project. These comments area based on the latest information provided by the applicant, including the January TIS and comments from the applicant?s traffic engineer, and response. Traffic Impacts at NYS Route 434 and Washington Street The applicant's Traffic Impact Assessment states that ?the existing longer delays at the Vestal Parkway (Rt 434) South Washington Street intersection will continue to degrade with the additional traffic generated by the proposed analysis indicates that the northbound left/through movement will drop to LOS and the westbound left movement will drop to LOS during the morning peak hour" (page 8). To mitigate this traffic impact, the TIS recommends that signal timings at Vestal Parkway (NYS Rt 434) and South Washington Street be adjusted as a Mitigation Measure to maintain the existing Levels of Service at this intersection. In response to this proposed mitigation measure NYSDOT has stated that they ?will likely not be able to implement these changes, as the proposed alterations will result in significant increases in delay on NYS Route 434? (email from NYSDOT dated 1/25/20). Since the applicant?s proposed mitigation measure will likely not be implemented, the project would result in significant traffic impacts at NYS Route 434 and South Washington Street. Even implementing the recommended changes to the signal timings would result in negative traffic impacts along Rt 434. Therefore, the project would result in traffic impacts that have not been addressed by the applicant. Mary Street Widening NYSDOT stated in a January 7 email ?As Mary Street will be a primary access rOadway to and from this site, the project may require mitigation, such as widening of the street between the site entrance and NYS Route 434, to account for the use of this street by heavy vehicles and to ensure pedestrian safety?. In their follow?up email dated January 25 NYSDOT asks that the applicant to illustrate ?on the site plan the proposed widening or other changes to Mary Street to account for heavy vehicles, if necessary?. The applicant has not addressed the potential need to mitigate impacts to Mary Street. Therefore, this project may result in traffic impacts to Mary Street that has not been addressed by the applicant. 0 Mary Street Accidents The applicant?s updated crash analysis states that ?backing accidents are associated traffic backing out of the post office parking onto Mary Street?. This is substantiated by a Road Safety Assessment completed by BMTS which states that "vehicles backing out of the (post office) parking lot into Mary Street are causing accidents?. As discussed in the TIS the proposed development would increase traffic on Mary Street. The increase in traffic would potentially result in more traffic conflicts and safety impacts with the post office traffic. Leigh McCullen Senior Transportation Planner Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study From: Murphy, Sean W. (DOT) Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:22 PM To: Gordon Stansbury Zier, Lora M. Martinez, Tito - Cc: Signorelli, Tony (DOT) Conn, Jamie (DOT) Niederriter, Cathy (DOT) McCullen, Leigh A. Paddick, M. Gowe, Brenda L.. Boulton, Leslie G. Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Assessment 33 South Washington Street Gordon, Lora, Tito: Please see the attached comments below regarding the revised site plan and TIS for this proposal: - The TIS recommends signal timing changes at the NYS Route 434/South Washington Street intersection. However, the Department will likely not be able to implement these changes, as the proposed alterations will result in significant increases in delay on NYS Route 434. The Department will continue to monitor traffic at the intersection, and make alterations to the signal timing if improvements can be made; Please direct the applicant to include the required pedestrian connection from the site to the sidewalk at NYS Route 434 at Mary Street on the site plan. We also encourage the applicant to display an internal pedestrian network; Please advise the applicant to display on the site plan the proposed widening or other changes to Mary Street to account for heavy vehicles, if necessary; -. The rendering of the site design does not show the existing ROW fence or the trees along NYS Route 434. However, the applicant will not be permitted to remove these items; The Department is currently reviewing the accident analysis and may have additional comments in the near future; I will be out of the office until February so please contact the Office of Traffic and Safety at 607?721?8080 if you have any questions. Thanks Sean Murphy Regional GIS Coordinator/Regional Site Plan Review Coordinator/Primavera Technical Support New York State Department of Transportation, Region 9 44 Hawley Street, Binghamton, NY 13901 (607) 772?7335 Sean.Murphv@dot.nv.Rov @mimm From: Gordon Stansbury Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 7: 06 AM To: Murphy, Sean W. (DOT) Cc: Signorelli, Tony (DOT) Conn, Jamie (DOT) Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street ENTION: This ernnif camefron from unknown? . Good Morning Gentlemen, Scratch my request for additional direction right now. We are going to document the collision diagrams and provide additional discussion on patterns. Trying to finalize a response today as they have a meeting with the City this evening. Thanks Gordon Gordon T. Stansbury P.E., PTOE GTS Consulting 1396 White Bridge Road Chittenango NY 13037 Phone: 315?391?5110 From: Gordon Stansbury Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 2:35 PM To: 'Murphy, Sean W. Cc: 'Signorelli, Tony 'Conn, Jamie Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Assessment 33 South Washington Street Sean/Tony/Jamie, Zier, Lora M. From: Zier, Lora M. Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 1: 35 PM To: Martinez, Tito Cc: McCuIIen, Leigh Yonkoski, Jennifer Paddick, Gowe, Brenda Giordano, Emily Boulton, Leslie G. Subject: NYSDOT FW: Traffic Impact Assessment 33 South Washington Street Tito: Please see the NYSDOT comment of February 6, 2020 from Sean Murphy below which follows the NYSDOT comments ofJanuary 23,2020 provided further below. Sincerely, Lora Zier From: Murphy, Sean W. (DOT) Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 1:17 PM To: Zier, Lora M. Subject: FW: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street Lora: The Department has no additional comments on the accident analysis for the above project at this time. Thanks, Sean Murphy Regional GIS Coordinator/Regional Site Plan Review Coordinator/Primavera Technical Support New York State Department of Transportation, Region 9 44 Hawley Street, Binghamton, NY 13901 (607) 772?7335 Sean.Murphv@dot.nv.gov Wig: From: Murphy, Sean W. (DOT) Sent: Thursday, January 23,2020 5:22 PM To: Gordon Stansbury rr com>; Zier, Lora M. ; Martinez, Tito Cc: Signorelli, Tony (DOT) Conn, Jamie (DOT) Niederriter, Cathy (DOT) McCullen, Leigh A. Paddick, M. Gowe, Brenda L.. Boulton, Leslie G. Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street Gordon, Lora, Tito: Please see the attached comments below regarding the revised site plan and TIS for this proposal: Zier, Lora M. . From: Murphy, Sean W. (DOT) Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 3:26 PM To: - Gordon Stansbury; Paddick, M. Cc: 'Dan Griffiths'; 'Chris Stastny?; Signorelli, Tony Conn, Jamie Martinez, Tito; Zier, Lora M. Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Assessment 33 South Washington Street Gordon: Please see the Department?s comments below regarding the Traffic Impact Study for the above project. Regarding the traffic modeling: - The EB WB thru phases at the NYS Route 434/South Washington Street intersection should be set to MIN, not - The NB right turn at this intersection is run as permitted plus overlap. Please add the overlap; Regarding the accident analysis: Per the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 5 guidance, this analysis must use the Full Crash Analysis Procedure, as the overall three?year crash rate is higher than the average rate for a comparable type of facility, and this project has the potential to worsen conditions at an existing Priority Investigation Location (PIL) in the vicinity. As part of this analysis, the study will require the use of DMV crash reports to construct the required collision diagrams; - As Mary Street will be a primary access roadway to and from this site, the project may require mitigation, suEh as widening of the street between the site entrance and NYS Route 434, to account for the use of this street by heavy vehicles and to ensure pedestrian safety; Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Sean Murphy Regional GIS Coordinator/Regional Site Plan Review Coordinator/Primavera Technical Support New York State Department of Transportation, Region 9 44 Hawley Street, Binghamton, NY 13901 (607) 772-7335 Sean.Murnhv@dot.nv.gov Wm: of wm? transportation From: Gordon Stansbury Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2020 1:54 PM Department of Transportation MARIE THERESE cue: Ions:- NICOLASA CHOU H, PE Ms. Lora ZIer SenIor he required" between the Department and Lents of: this TIS and other iappIIcantIsengIneer fogoontaof Coordinator. 81(607) 772-7335 to S?t the aspects oF the pt up the meet.In__ II ?nish the p'otentIaI for vehicles torning left into tHe one from southbound South 551 StLeet to Impede traffic on NYSRoute 434 me traf?c confguratIon shown on the site plan may not be permISS'ible for a WIth continuous operation throughout the day; - No oiiyewayszto Route 434 will b?-pormitted for this Site: Department review pnor to construction Drainage study requirements can be found at dot. ny. gov/permits Nothing may be placed within the State rught-of-way, including Signage . those walking, or at the Site a vehicle Department recommends that the applicant conSIder; have any other questions or need further please contact my- i. . sincerely . Tony P. E. Regional Traf?c Engineer Zier, Lora M. From: McCullen, Leigh A. Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 3:41 PM To: Martinez, Tito Cc: Zier, Lora M. Subject: 239-2019?141 Binghamton City FW: Traffic Impact Assessment 33 South Washington Street BMTS has the following comments on this project. We may have additional comments if the site plan and/or TIS are updated. - From the TIS: Section 3.3 Projected Trip Generation Distribution (Page 6): Traffic generation may be higher than estimated in the TIS: Land Use 820 Shopping Center trip generation was used for-the existing commercial buildings. The definition of Shopping Center in the ITE Trip Generation Manual does not seem to be consistent with how these buildings are developed or will be used. We recommend selecting a worst-case scenario land use representing how these building would be reasonably occupied. For example, since the Number 5-building is currently occupied restaurant it is likely that it would continue to be used as a restaurant. The TIS uses average traffic generation rates from the ITE Manual for the proposed uses. Since the traffic volumes on 434 and Vestal Avenue are higher than average, coupled with the high visibility of the site, we would suggest that traffic generation for the development may be higher than average. Further, if the coffee shop is a Dunkin? or a Starbucks traffic generation would likely be higher than average. Therefore, traffic generation for this development may be higher than estimated in the TIS. Pass-by trips the TIS takes a pass?by trip credit pursuant to the ITE Trip Generation Manual which reduces the total trip generation estimated for the development. The trips to the site would not truly be pass?by since vehicles would be diverted onto local streets (Washington, Vestal Ave and Mary) to access the site. The local streets would experience an increase in traffic (for example see Page 8, Section 3.8 Washington Street and the Parkway). True pass?by trips wouldn?t generally increase traffic on the surrounding street network. Therefore, traffic generation for this development may be higher than estimated in the TIS. From the TIS: Section 3.4 Internal Circulation, Parking and Deliveries (Page 7) The proposed development may have on-site circulation conflicts and site access impacts: The TIS does not discuss in much detail the potential onsite traffic conflicts. Specifically, the drive?through lane for the coffee shop would general conflict with the entire circulation for all the uses, not just the bank drive- through, and fuel deliveries would conflict with the exit lane onto Mary Street. The site plan does not include the location of a dumpster enclosure so it is difficult to determine ifthere would be conflicts due to trash collection. The site plan also doesn?t include a loading space for deliveries. The TIS does not mention that the only way for delivery trucks to access to the site is from Vestal Avenue through the City-owned and maintained parking lot for Southside Commons. What are the impacts to the City- owned parking area (vehicular, pedestrian)? What alterations would be required to city's parking lot or driveway from Vestal Avenue to accommodate delivery trucks (including fueling trucks)? The City?s parking lot is paved with permeable pavement. Is the pavement surface adequate for large fueling vehicles or other delivery vehicles? Who would be responsible for maintenance if the City grants the developer an easement? NYSDOT has indicated that Mary Street may need to be widened to accommodate access to and exiting from the site. How would this be accomplished? Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations it is expected that the site would generate a substantial number of pedestrian and bicycle trips given the walkable nature ofthe Southside and the site?s proximity to the 434 Greenway and Washington Street pedestrian bridge. Therefore, the site plan should include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, including sidewalks throughout of the site notjust adjoining the proposed building, and bicycle parking. Leigh McCuIIen Senior Transportation Planner Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study From: Martinez, Tito Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 4:09 PM To: Zier, Lora M. McCullen, Leigh A. Yonkoski, Jennifer L. 'sean.murphy@dot.ny.gov' Gowe, Brenda L.. Boulton, Leslie G. Brink, Ron Cc: Paddick, M. Gordon Stansbury 'Dan Griffiths' 'Chris Stastny' Signoreili, Tony (DOT) Conn, Jamie (DOT) Subject: RE: 239-2019?141 Binghamton City FW: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street Lora, The project is scheduled to reappear before the Planning Commission Monday. There is a more detailed set of drawings coming in this week and we will forward to you as soon as we have them. We are anticipating that the Planning Commission will give the applicant feedback on the revised drawings and then table the case until February. l?m not sure what you mean by SHPO coordination. if you?re referring to the CAUD review of the demolition, they found 28 Mary St to have no historic significance, which would allow the issuance of a demolition permit if the Pianning Commission approves the project. Best, Tito From: Zier, Lora M. . Sent: Tuesday,J anuary 7, 2020 3:44 PM To: McCullen, LeighA. ; Gowe, Brenda L. Subject: 239-2019?141 Binghamton City FW: Traffic Impact Assessment - 33 South Washington Street Tito: I am forwarding the email below from Sean Murphy to Leigh, Brenda, and Ron for their information. Please update us on the status of this project, meetings, site plan drawing set, SHPO coordination, onsite park, etc.when you can. Thank you, Zier, Lora M. From: Brink, Ron Sent: ,Friday, October 25, 2019 9:17 AM To: Zier, Lora M. Subject: RE: 239?2019?141 FW: 239: 33 Washington St Hi Lora The Health Department has no comments on this application. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation strictly regulates underground fuel storage like that proposed here, and the other proposed land uses are not expected to create environmental issues. Ron Brink BC Health From: Zier, Lora M. Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 6:08 PM To: McCullen, Leigh A. Yonkoski, Jennifer L. 'sean.murphy@dot.ny.gov' Gowe, Brenda L.. Boulton, Leslie G. Brink, Ron Subject: 239-2019?141 FW: 239: 33 Washington St Leigh, Sean, Brenda, and Ron: Please see the four attachments and the email below for 33 Washington Street and 28 Mary Street. The submittal lacks a complete site plan. (See my list below.) I showed Leigh, John, and Brenda the submittal this afternoon and they expressed concerns about the Washington Street ingress. Do you have comments or concerns at this time? Do you need additional information to complete your review and comments? I would appreciate hearing from you before I contact Tito. What is the status of this project? What action will the Planning Commission take On December 9, 2019? Why was only a concept plan submitted at this time? Will a survey map be prepared for this project? When can Tito send us the staff report? What is the traffic generation? What are the bank drive?thru, electric vehicle charging station, and fueling station queuing details? What is the proposed location for the electric vehicle charging station? The Washington Street ingress and parking layout raise traffic safety concerns. Is there sufficient aisle width between the parking spaces and fueling station? What existing uses will remain? Will the Number 5 restaurant remain? What is the proposed retail? We should have a complete site plan that shows the following at a minimum: 0 Correct tax map boundaries for 33 S. Washington Street and 28 Mary Street (The tax map boundaries for 33 S. Washington Street do not completely follow the BC GIS tax map boundaries. The attached concept plan does not show the complete tax map boundaries for 28 Mary Street.) Existing and proposed uses and what existing uses will remain Setbacks (existing and pr0posed) Aisle widths Area of disturbance and demolition, grading, contours 1 0000